Should celebrities speak out about politics?

[Undesired Walrus]

One could make the argument that the population of this world is so desensitised to politics in general that the only way they can get energised is to have some cheesy rock star or arrogant film actor tell them what to believe.

The only problem is, I dont want people to cave and see "Well, they are the only ones they will listen to" as unfortunatly, I doubt most actors are very clever in the least and impressionable kids will take their word by heart without time for critical thinking.

[andyandy]

politicians are just actors with a different stage.....

[Freddy]

Why not? They're entitled to their opinions. Whether anyone should care what they think is another question entirely. Some celebrities have done great work promoting various causes. More often, unfortunately, they just sound stupid.

[skeptifem]

If they know what the hell they are talking about and prove it by choosing an appropriate venue, sure. If they just spout bs at an awards show or on a song, then no. Theres enough misinformation out there without dumbasses like kanye west saying bush did 9/11 in a song.

[PeekaBoo]

Shall we make a list of which groups of people are worthy enough to have a public opinion?

I'd rather hear a celebrity speak out than a religious leader. Any day of the week.

[Azure]

Shall we make a list of which groups of people are worthy enough to have a public opinion?

I'd rather hear a celebrity speak out than a religious leader. Any day of the week.

Why?

Religious leaders have a right to voice their opinions, no?

Or are we going to make a list of which groups of people are worthy enough to have a public opinion?

;)

[ConspiRaider]

Haven't you heard? This is the age of reality TV and YouTube.

Everybody's a celebrity!!!!11one!!!11eleventy!!!111

The one that changed my life is when Britney Spears implored us all to just trust The President completely back there when the Iraq War was a snappin' and a poppin'. So young - and so insightful.

[Overman]

Should people discuss politics on an internet forum?

[Steven Howard]

If they know what the hell they are talking about and prove it by choosing an appropriate venue, sure. If they just spout bs at an awards show or on a song, then no. Theres enough misinformation out there without dumbasses like kanye west saying bush did 9/11 in a song.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but it almost sounds as if you're implying that music is not a legitimate medium for political statements.

[ConspiRaider]

Should people discuss politics on an internet forum?
Definitely not. No religion either. That's what we have celebrities for.

[PeekaBoo]

Why?

Religious leaders have a right to voice their opinions, no?

Or are we going to make a list of which groups of people are worthy enough to have a public opinion?

;)

Of course they do. That is just my personal preference, I'm sure other people feel differently.

If religions didn't have those tax exemptions, I might feel a little better when they start discussing politics.

[MelBrooksfan]

Sure. Celebrities can speak out about whatever they want. Whether or not we should listen is another matter.

[BPSCG]

Should audience members be allowed to bring a megaphone and yell "I'm paying you to sing! Now shut up and sing, goddamit!"?

[The Great Hairy One]

Have you forgotten Ronnie Regan? Or Arnie? Even Clint Eastwood was mayor somewhere, IIRC.

Cheers,
TGHO

[corplinx]

Remember, Celebrities are sheltered do-gooders who have no right to use their celebrity to express their opinion.......

when its in disagreement with your own opinion.

That seems to be the sentiment I see most.

[MelBrooksfan]

Should audience members be allowed to bring a megaphone and yell "I'm paying you to sing! Now shut up and sing, goddamit!"?

With many musicians, begining to play music does not mean a cessation of political message.

[PeekaBoo]

It's interesting that it's almost always the liberal celebrities that people 'question.'

The right wing seems to have a real problem hearing the other side. Weird concept of patriotism. :i:

[Tricky]

Most celebrities don't know a thing about the real world. Sadly, neither do most politicians.

ETA. Question: Should politicians have any opinions on Hollywood?

[skeptifem]

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but it almost sounds as if you're implying that music is not a legitimate medium for political statements.


i dont consider music a serious source for information on politics, because its a one way communication. person A makes a song and it gets broadcast, thats it. You hear it and either agree or disagree, and you cant very well argue with it. Songs can be politically relevant or moving or thought provoking, which is of value to me, but I dont consider it a way to show that a person is a credible source of information.

On a news program there is at least a discussion occuring, where a person can demonstrate their reasoning/knowledge on a subject. Not all news programs are equally critical, but at least there is some sort of examination is occuring and differing opinions are offered side by side.

[Beanbag]

There's the great line from Team America: World Police. Jeanane Gararararafalllolloo (in puppet form) stands up and says "As actors and members of the Film Actors Guild, it is our job to stand up and express our opinions very slowly and clearly."

Sheesh. Actors live in a fantasy world. When was the last time they had to choose between fixing their car or living on peanut butter for a month? They play with guns and then campaign against gun ownership as increasing violence. They are paid mouthpieces whose entire source of livelihood is repeating whatever lines are fed to them convincingly, and acting out scripted motions in a manner that looks natural and believable. In short, they are professional liars.

So they have an opinion. Good for them. Let'em spout it all they want. But they shouldn't be surprised when somebody doesn't take them seriously or gets angry when they push for some reform that has zero impact on the actor and major negative impact on people just trying to get by.

They have an opinion. It just doesn't matter any more than anyone else's.

Beanbag

[Wheezebucket]

Should actors be allowed to voice their personal opinions on politics and world events when asked, or when they're in the proper forum? I don't see why not - they're still human beings, right? I know poor people who aren't on tv get to talk all they want. Celebrities just happen to get more opportunity to do so on the world stage - and the problem isn't really them talking, it's the people who blindly listen to them.

[MelBrooksfan]

Recently, Bruce Willis was talking about this very topic. http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/05/13/bruce_willis_irritated_by_outspoken_acto

I don't think my opinion means jack ****, because I'm an actor. Why do actors think their opinions mean more because you act? You just caught a break as an actor. There are hundreds - thousands - of actors who are just as good as I am, and probably better. Have you heard anything useful come out of an actor's mouth lately?

[ConspiRaider]

Sheesh. Actors live in a fantasy world. When was the last time they had to choose between fixing their car or living on peanut butter for a month? They play with guns and then campaign against gun ownership as increasing violence. They are paid mouthpieces whose entire source of livelihood is repeating whatever lines are fed to them convincingly, and acting out scripted motions in a manner that looks natural and believable. In short, they are professional liars.

Some of us do (actors I mean) live in a fantasy world. But then so do many non-actors.

Most actors - the vast vast vast vast majority of us - actually DO have to choose between fixing their car or living on peanut butter for a month.

Most actors are out of work in the acting business. They're a lot like me. If they were smart or lucky, they hedged their bets years ago and learned a trade or a service outside of the acting world.

Actors aren't liars. I've heard that but it isn't really true. In its purest form, acting is a heightened form of communication. Similar to writing, singing, composing, playing an instrument, painting, sculpting and other such endeavors. Yes - somebody has written dialogue on a page. But it just lies there until someone picks up those lines and breathes life and meaning and passion and feeling into them. Acting is a skill. The real actors - and there aren't many of them - do it because they NEED to do it. Conventional means of expression leave them wanting. Acting provides the vehicle to honestly express themselves.

Very few real actors are right-wing or Republican. Sure, Arnold is, but then how many consider him a real actor? Debatable. I'm talking about those who started acting young, did the stage work, got the training and put in the time and experience to the craft of acting. They'll end up being liberal, or people-cause-oriented. Very simple reason. To honestly portray a character, an actor has to know that type of person, to feel what they feel - to temporarily BE that person. Actors - the real ones - are usually very empathetic. Which is a fancy way of saying that you understand how the other guy thinks. And so an actor is not lying - an actor is actually trying to honestly portray the spectrum of emotion that is believable within a character. That takes real work. But at the heart of it all is a fascination and appreciation of the human spirit in all of its manifestations.

I'll agree that prominent actors frequently come off as naive when commenting publicly on certain political and social issues. I think it's a bit of an occupational hazard. I believe these people feel they should be outspoken. A bit of being blinded by passion, perhaps?

[jimtron]

Everyone who wants to, should speak about politics. One problem is that many folks seem to believe that celebrities are super-human, or that their opinions are more valid than non-celebrities, which obviously is ridiculous.

Political dialog shouldn't be restricted only to media people or politicians or other pundits. Anyone should talk about anything they want, and we are all free to agree or disagree or argue or ignore.

[Wainscotting]

Politics affects everyone, so everyone should have a say in what they think is right.

I see no reason celebrities should not be allowed to express their opinion.

[skeptifem]

Should actors be allowed to voice their personal opinions on politics and world events when asked, or when they're in the proper forum? I don't see why not - they're still human beings, right? I know poor people who aren't on tv get to talk all they want. Celebrities just happen to get more opportunity to do so on the world stage - and the problem isn't really them talking, it's the people who blindly listen to them.


I didnt think this thread was about allowing them to, just wether or not they should.

I think they should be allowed to, but most of the time its so stupid/ignorant I think they should really keep their mouths closed. The intellectual circle jerk of actors repeating each others sentiments is a shameful spectacle imo.

[slingblade]

Of course they should.

The filter should be in your mind, not on their mouths.

[billydkid]

We get a fair number of these "should" questions and I have to be honest, I don't really understand them. Everybody "should" be able to do or say whatever they want to do or say as long as they are not interfering with someone else's right to do the same.

[Darth Rotor]

Of course they should.

The filter should be in your mind, not on their mouths.
She shoots, she scores! :)

Well played.

DR

[ZouPrime]

No, because they risk being listen and believed.

I think it is fair to assume that celebrities are no more or less knowledgeable about politics than other people. The big difference thought is that they have a lot more influence than the rest of us.

If I proclaim a political opinion publicly, I will have a very limited audience, and a very limited influence. That's ok, because my knowledge is pretty limited too, so if I'm wrong I won't bring people in the wrong with me.

Celebrities, on the other hand, can sway a very large number of people on way or another. They have tremedouns influencal power. But, as stated in the assumption, they don't know more than anyone else, so they risk claiming something wrong, and disseminating a falsehood among of the population in the process.

This isn't to say that celebrities should not have the right to speak their mind. Of course they have this right. Doesn't mean that they are right in exercising it. The most intelligent will understand that their influence is disproportionate compared to their actual knowledge and they will shut up instead of risking turning into a living appeal to authority.

If you want to look at this more formally, consider that our knowledge (political in this case) can be (very loosely) modeled as a Biba integrity model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biba_Model). Non-experts like most people or celebrities are low in the integrity model: they don't know much about politics, so they shouldn't influence the global body of knowledge ("no write up") and they shouldn't trust the knowledge of people who are even less knowledgeable about the subject ("no read down").

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I don't have any issue with celebrities speaking up about politics. Their opinions are no better nor worse than mine or anyone else's. I only get annoyed when celebrities decide to preach politics at awards shows or other functions where it isn't particularly appropriate. I no more want to hear Tim Robbin's views on the Republican Party during the Oscars than I want to hear Curt Schilling's views on George Bush in the middle of a baseball game. And in fairness, I think most celebrities show decent common sense about when and where to express their political views.

I also think their influence is overstated. People who agree with them will nod their heads and say "right on," and people who disagree will say, "there's another know-nothing celebrity shooting off at the mouth." I'm pretty sure both Gore and Kerry had most of the celebrity support, and it didn't do them a lot of good.

[Upchurch]

No, because they risk being listen and believed.
I was in a few commercials when I was a kid. Should I not post about politics anymore?

[Thanz]

I was in a few commercials when I was a kid. Should I not post about politics anymore?
Cookie commercials, no doubt. Have they made you a celebrity? Do you get the best tables in restaurants? Can you not see the end of your driveway for all the paparazzi?

ZouPrime's post was aimed at celebrities, not anyone who ever acted or acts now.

[corplinx]

I was in a few commercials when I was a kid. Should I not post about politics anymore?

Dude, I knew I had seen you before.
You are the kid directly below Corey Feldman. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stand_by_me_poster.jpg)

Please stop posting on the politics forum now as you obviously have no opinion worth hearing since you were once in an 80s movie adaption of a Stephen King novel.

[Undesired Walrus]

The main problem I have with celebrities like Bono and Geldof is that they set the message that their fans should follow. There is no room for criticism, and if one objects to the way their idols are handling it, their fans will simply not listen. Of course they have the right to, but they should think more carefully about creating an absolutist policy on something as important as global poverty. They should know their impressionable fans will obey their word by the book.

[BPSCG]

I was in a few commercials when I was a kid. Should I not post about politics anymore?Yes, you should not. But not because you were in commercials; rather because you're using up precious bandwidth that could be put to better use by Nigerian 419 scam artists and $ylvia Browne.


(...sorry, but you have to admit, you invited that kind of response... :p )

[BPSCG]

The main problem I have with celebrities like Bono and Geldof is that they set the message that their fans should follow. There is no room for criticism, and if one objects to the way their idols are handling it, their fans will simply not listen. Of course they have the right to, but they should think more carefully about creating an absolutist policy on something as important as global poverty. They should know their impressionable fans will obey their word by the book.But, as slingblade so pithily put it, the filter should be on the fans' minds, not the celebrities' mouths. I disagree with about 95% of what comes out of Hollywood, but if some idiot actor wants to wax prolix on some issue of which he knows nothing, who has the right to tell him to shut up?

My problem is more with the media who fawn over his pronouncements and give them far more publicity than they deserve. I wish reporters would tell them, "Hey, we don't ask at George Bush's press conferences what he thinks of your acting, so spare us what you think of his politics. Now, let's talk about why you flashed your clitoris at the camera when you got out of your limo the other night. Were you drunk again?"

[jimtron]

The main problem I have with celebrities like Bono and Geldof is that they set the message that their fans should follow. There is no room for criticism, and if one objects to the way their idols are handling it, their fans will simply not listen. Of course they have the right to, but they should think more carefully about creating an absolutist policy on something as important as global poverty. They should know their impressionable fans will obey their word by the book.

How is there "no room for criticism"?

Could you cite an example of a celebrity "creating an absolutist policy...on global poverty"?

You might have a good point here, but the above sounds a bit like a straw man.

[ZouPrime]

I was in a few commercials when I was a kid. Should I not post about politics anymore?But are you a celebrity? Does your celebrity status magnify the influence you have over your peers, specially in topics you don't have an expertise in?

[ZouPrime]

ZouPrime's post was aimed at celebrities, not anyone who ever acted or acts now.
Also, the same logic can be used in other area than entertainment. For example, politicians who are not expert in science should abstain from commenting science, since the influence they have over their constituent is bigger than what their expertise in the topic should normally warrant.

[MelBrooksfan]

Also, the same logic can be used in other area than entertainment. For example, politicians who are not expert in science should abstain from commenting science, since the influence they have over their constituent is bigger than what their expertise in the topic should normally warrant.

The problem again lies with the listeners believing they are some kind of authority on the subject. In a perfect world, politicians would abstain from commenting on topics about which they are not knowledgeable. However, if they do, their listeners should recognize it for the ignorant patter it may be.

Also, there's something of a difference between politics and science. Politics is much more opinion based and rather difficult to prove who is right and who is wrong.

[Undesired Walrus]

How is there "no room for criticism"?

Could you cite an example of a celebrity "creating an absolutist policy...on global poverty"?


Live8. Within the confines of music venues, there was absolutely no room for criticism. I don't mean simply that African children shouldn't die, but the methods the G8 had come up with to 'solve' the poverty. It was a chain of command. Geldof praises something the G8 leaders do, the masses follow. Geldof disagrees with something the G8 leaders do, the same applies. There are many, many options on such an important issue, and I worry that teenagers who will be the future leaders of the world will believe chucking money at Africa, achievable only by those in the most powerful positions of the world, who the crowds invest all their trust in, is the only way to achieve change. Combine that with the message 'Make Poverty History', and we can not escape an absolutist message that we have to invest all our fate in what 8 leaders do sitting around in a castle in Scotland. Then Geldof saying "Mission Accomplished" at the end of it all makes everyone forget about a consistent, global problem that the powerful cannot solve by themselves.

[jimtron]

To me it's a little bit creepy to discuss whether a class of people "should" speak out about politics, or anything else. I could see saying, "it annoys me when celebrities talk about politics." America is supposed to be about freedom and liberty and free speech. Everyone "should" talk about absolutely anything they like. Of course there are a lot of idiots in the country, and that's a problem with democracy.

The big difference thought is that they have a lot more influence than the rest of us.

Priests, rabbis, college professors, politicians, and journalists all have more influence than the rest of us. I wouldn't say that they "shouldn't" speak out about politics (even though I'm not fond of religion, I wouldn't say that a priest shouldn't speak out about politics). When you start discussing who should or shouldn't speak out about politics, you start getting elitist. In my view the right sometimes shoots the messenger by complaining about "elitist" academics, the "liberal" media, clueless celebrities who talk politics, and the like. Wasn't there someone in the Bush Admin. who, after 9/11, said something about how we should watch what we say?

[jimtron]

Live8. Within the confines of music venues, there was absolutely no room for criticism. I don't mean simply that African children shouldn't die, but the methods the G8 had come up with to 'solve' the poverty. It was a chain of command. Geldof praises something the G8 leaders do, the masses follow. Geldof disagrees with something the G8 leaders do, the same applies. There are many, many options on such an important issue, and I worry that teenagers who will be the future leaders of the world will believe chucking money at Africa, achievable only by those in the most powerful positions of the world, who the crowds invest all their trust in, is the only way to achieve change.

Then Geldof saying "Mission Accomplished" at the end of it all makes everyone forget about a consistent, global problem that the powerful cannot solve by themselves.

I agree that many people act like sheep, but that's not Geldof's fault. Live 8 raised billions of dollars in aid for poor nations. It was a fundraising event; not a political debate. What do you mean "absolutely no room for criticism?" People attending the concert couldn't criticize it to each other while in the venue? The media couldn't publish articles criticizing the event?

There are many, many options on such an important issue, and I worry that teenagers who will be the future leaders of the world will believe chucking money at Africa, achievable only by those in the most powerful positions of the world, who the crowds invest all their trust in, is the only way to achieve change.

If someone believes that, they are ignorant. Has Geldof said that the only way to achieve change is to "chuck" money at Africa?

Combine that with the message 'Make Poverty History', and we can not escape an absolutist message that we have to invest all our fate in what 8 leaders do sitting around in a castle in Scotland.

How is it "absolutist"? I'm sure there are plenty of legit faults with Geldof, but I believe basically he's doing a great thing; getting popular musicians to play a benefit to raise awareness about poverty in Africa, and raising billions of dollars. I wish more celebrities would work for free for some of the other many worthy causes. Who said that "we have to invest all our fate in what 8 leaders do sitting around in a castle in Scotland?" That sounds an awful lot like a straw man.

[Upchurch]

But are you a celebrity? Does your celebrity status magnify the influence you have over your peers, specially in topics you don't have an expertise in?
Well, despite the comments from the peanut gallery :D, my point is celebrity is not a binary determination. There are many levels of celebrity, where is the cut off?


Along the lines of your question: Does Bush use his celebrity status to influence his peers (or, let's be honest, political inferiors) on topics he doesn't have an expertise in? Like science or foreign policy, for instance? Should the president refrain from commenting on these things despite a lack of expertise?

I say "no" to that last one.



It was a couple of commercials for a local pizza place. I was one of many kids at a pizza party.

[corplinx]

Well, despite the comments from the peanut gallery :D,[/size]

Don't be modest, you were great in that flick.

[KoihimeNakamura]

To answer the op.. sure! We don't have to listen, after all.

[Upchurch]

Don't be modest, you were great in that flick.
You found me out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_O%27Connell). The whole St. Louis, tuba playing, cookie-eating thing is all a sham. Hell, I don't even have a beard.

Now, let me enlighten you on my opinions of why drugs are bad, m'kay?

[corplinx]

You found me out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_O%27Connell). The whole St. Louis, tuba playing, cookie-eating thing is all a sham. Hell, I don't even have a beard.

Now, let me enlighten you on my opinions of why drugs are bad, m'kay?

Next you will be telling me that wasn't you playing Chunk Cohen in The Goonies. Nice try Upchunk.

[ZouPrime]

Well, despite the comments from the peanut gallery :D, my point is celebrity is not a binary determination. There are many levels of celebrity, where is the cut off?

I have no idea. But I don't see how it change anything to my argument.

"People who have a sedentary lifestyle should exercice to stay healty" is a rule that I think most people would qualify as good. Does the fact that having a sendentary lifestyle isn't a binary determination change anything to its validity?

Just to make sure I'm making myself perfectly clear here... I'm not talking about stopping celebrity from talking about stuff they are not expert in. I'm not making a free-speech argument; I'm making an information dissemination argument. Information should be disseminated by experts, because they are (as a rule of thumb, all other things being equal, yada yada yada) the ones with the best chance to know the right information (by definition, since they are expert). Non-expert celebrities have the means to disseminate information disproportionally. My point is that they should abstain from doing so as a public service, since disseminating misleading information is fundamentally a bad thing.


Along the lines of your question: Does Bush use his celebrity status to influence his peers (or, let's be honest, political inferiors) on topics he doesn't have an expertise in? Like science or foreign policy, for instance? Should the president refrain from commenting on these things despite a lack of expertise?

I say "no" to that last one.

You say no? I really don't understand how you could say that. Won't that lead to mislead to a large scale?

Suppose we classify Bush as a celebrity (in the context that his celebrity status magnify the influence he has over his peers). Lets say Bush claims that the Earth is flat (and information we can all agree is wrong). Because of his celebrity status, a lot of people will now also believe that the earth is flat, even if Bush isn't an expert on earth flateness. So you're saying that this scenario is a good thing? That Bush shouldn't have refrained from talking about something despite his lack of expertise?

(This example is exagerated and unrealistic on purpose)

[fuelair]

Why not? They're entitled to their opinions. Whether anyone should care what they think is another question entirely. Some celebrities have done great work promoting various causes. More often, unfortunately, they just sound stupid.Excellent - just what I was planning to say until I caught yours!!:)

[Undesired Walrus]

I agree that many people act like sheep, but that's not Geldof's fault. Live 8 raised billions of dollars in aid for poor nations. It was a fundraising event; not a political debate.

Actually, it wasn't a fundraising event. It was free for anyone who sent in a text message before a certain time. Geldof missed a great opportunity to make millions upon millions for the simple price of 20 quid for a ticket, a price most people would have forked out gladly to see such stars. But he didn't. Why? Because he simply wanted to do it differently.

[jimtron]

Actually, it wasn't a fundraising event. It was free for anyone who sent in a text message before a certain time. Geldof missed a great opportunity to make millions upon millions for the simple price of 20 quid for a ticket, a price most people would have forked out gladly to see such stars. But he didn't. Why? Because he simply wanted to do it differently.

OK, but they did raise billions of dollars for poor nations, right?

I still don't get your claims of "absolute no room for criticism" and "absolutism." If there are some things you don't like about the way Live 8 was handled, that's one thing. But to accuse Geldof of being something like a facist--I don't see it. Would you agree that generally speaking he did an excellent thing--got megastars to perform for free which led to raising billions for a worthy charity? Would it have been better if he never spoke out about politics, and didn't hold these concerts? No one is above criticism, but I applaud any celeb or non-celeb who brings a worthy cause to light, and helps to raise money for it.

eta: I guess the G8 pledged billions, and may not follow through. My point isn't about how successful Live 8 was though; my point is that, in response to post #35, Geldof was not perpetrating an "absolutist policy" and forbidding criticism. I would love to hear more celebrities and non celebrities talk about any of the many crises in the world, and try to encourage doing something about them.

[Upchurch]

You say no? I really don't understand how you could say that. Won't that lead to mislead to a large scale?
Potentially, yes. If he does mislead, he should be rightly chastised for it and so should anyone who buys into his uninformed opinions.

In my opinion, it is better to know what someone is all about and judge them accordingly rather than merely the facade they put forward.


Suppose we classify Bush as a celebrity (in the context that his celebrity status magnify the influence he has over his peers). Lets say Bush claims that the Earth is flat (and information we can all agree is wrong). Because of his celebrity status, a lot of people will now also believe that the earth is flat, even if Bush isn't an expert on earth flateness. So you're saying that this scenario is a good thing? That Bush shouldn't have refrained from talking about something despite his lack of expertise?
It is a bad thing that people are uninformed, but we are talking about people who can be influenced by someone like Bush despite evidence to the contrary. If it hadn't been Bush's flat-earth theory it would have been Charismatic Joe's square-earth theory. They'll believe whatever has the best marketing campaign.

[Ausmerican]

Sheesh. Actors live in a fantasy world. When was the last time they had to choose between fixing their car or living on peanut butter for a month? They play with guns and then campaign against gun ownership as increasing violence. They are paid mouthpieces whose entire source of livelihood is repeating whatever lines are fed to them convincingly, and acting out scripted motions in a manner that looks natural and believable. In short, they are professional liars.

In this they are different from the majority of politicians in which way exacly?

[Beanbag]

In this they are different from the majority of politicians in which way exacly?
No major difference at all.

Beanbag